Joymalya Bagchi, J. - (1.) The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 01/8/2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Malda in Sessions Trial No. 04 of 2011 arising out of Sessions Case no. 306 of 2011 convicting the appellant for commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months more for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for the life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, simple imprisonment for six months more for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, both the sentences to run concurrently.
(2.) The prosecution case, as alleged against the appellant is to the effect that in 2008 the victim Saina was married to the appellant according to Muslim law. Soon after the marriage, she was subjected to mental and physical torture over demands of monies. She was physically assaulted and finally on 22/4/2011 the appellant divorced her by pronouncing Talak. As a result she took refuge in the residence of one Noor Mohammad as a salish was proposed to be held over the aforesaid issue on 22/4/2011. In the evening of 22/4/2011 the appellant suddenly came to the residence of Noor Mohammad and assaulted the victim mercilessly with a knife. As a result, she suffered injuries on her person and was shifted to Chanchal Hospital and thereafter to Malda Hospital where she died after four days. In the meantime, complaint was lodged at Chanchal Police Station being Chanchal Police Station case no. 124 of 2011 dated 24/4/2011 under Section 498A/326 of the Indian Penal Code. After the death of the victim, Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added. Charge sheet was filed under Section 498A/302 of the Indian Penal Code. Case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Malda. The said Court framed charges under Section 498A/302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
(3.) In the course of trial, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses and exhibited a number of times. Defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication.;